Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
MUHAMMED AJMAL K. K. – Appellant
Versus
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1281 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.DINESH MATHEW, J. MURICKEN, SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI, SHRI.MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M., SMT.NAYANA VARGHESE, SMT.RIA VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SHRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR, SC
Procedural requirements under Customs Act must be adhered to, including filing appeals within stipulated time frames.
Headnote:This writ petition challenges the order of confiscation of gold seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, passed on 20.06.2024. The petitioner previously filed W.P.(C.) No.10845 of 2025 which was dismissed, allowing them to pursue statutory remedies. The court finds no evidence of the first appeal being submitted and dismisses the writ petition for lack of sufficient grounds. The critical issue was whether the petitioner could appeal after the condonable period had lapsed, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenged confiscation order. (Para 1) |
| 2. insufficient documentation for appeal. (Para 2) |
| 3. petition dismissal rationale. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, challenging the order of confiscation of gold seized from the possession of the petitioner, passed under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 . Ext.P4 is the order passed by the Customs Authorities as early as on 20.06.2024. The petitioner earlier approached this Court challenging the same by filing W.P.(C.) No.10845 of 2025, and the said writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P5, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, subsequently, the petitioner entrusted the matter with a counsel to submit the appeal, but as the said counsel passed away, the appeal could not be filed.
2. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to accept and adjudicate the petitioner's appeal under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 . However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, as far as the Section 129 is concerned, the same deals with the appeal before the appellate tribunal as against the order passed in the first appeal filed under Section 128 of the Customs Act by the appellate authority.
3. In this case, no documents are produced to show that the first appeal was submitted before the First Appellate Authority. Moreover, even the writ petition, which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment, was filed after the condonable period of limitation as contemplated under the Act. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be considered.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
